tv Today in Washington CSPAN July 22, 2011 6:00am-7:00am EDT
in new york city will be without protection should this legislation pass. vote no on this bill. let's not allow the very regulator that stood by and did nothing while trillions were stolen from americans. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady from west virginia. mrs. capito: we're not taking any powers away from the cfpb. we are not reforming any of the reach of the cfpb. but we are looking at the accountability structure of who is going to be governing the cfpb. and the gentlelady was helpful in committee when we amended the commission to have one commissioner particularly looking at specialty issues concerning veterans, elderly and children. i thank her for her input on that and i would like to recognize the gentleman from new york, a great member of our
committee, grimm, for a 1 1/2 minutes. mr. grimm: i'm at a loss of words when i hear that we are weakening this and weakening that. this is simply a commonsense approach and correcting the buyer crack -- buyer crack overreach. it replaces a single director model with a five-member bipartisan commission. that's what this bill is doing. for example, the commission will decrease uncertainty over the rules issued by the cfpb. as the bill is currently structured, they can reverse a decision of his or her predecessors. such power will do nothing but
increase uncertainty in our markets and reduce credit access to businesses and consumers and that stifles job growth. today, we have unemployment at 9.2%. we must, we must stop the job-killing, economy-crushing policies that have come out of washington. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 1315 and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: i yield myself 0 seconds to say, i -- 30 seconds to say, many republicans objected, but a shorter bill -- he talks about one-third of the bill which he talks as if it is the whole bill. it delays the takeover of some of the powers. when a member can't get through a four, five-page bill, i can
understand why they think it's too complex. i now yield to the gentleman. >> imagine a wave of arson attacks was burning down houses and businesses across the city. imagine that the city council responded by trying to delay and water down new laws making arson a crime, refuse to apoint a police and fire chief and gutted funding for public safety. i know that sounds far-fetched but that's what the republican majority is doing in the aftermath in the 2008 financial crisis. american consumers suffered most through job losses, foreclosures, declining home values and decimated retirement accounts. the bill was designed to address fundamental weaknesses. the centerpiece of this law is the consumer protection bureau, putting consumers first, not
wall street or other special interests. the bills we are debating today are part of a coordinated effort by the republicans to let wall street go back to business as usual. they have been trying to delay the implementation of these new rules and gutting funding for the agencies that are supposed to be the cops on the wall street beat and refusing to allow qualified nominees to be considered for appointments. this bill is called the consumer protection act. this bill would make it easier for special interests to block or delay cfpb rules. the american people are sick and tired of gridlock, yet this bill only offers more of the same. in the example above, the fires breaking out across town, ask yourself, mr. speaker, would you -- who would you blame after the next building burned? would it be the understaffed police who failed to catch the arsonist or the firefighters who failed to put out the fire or
the responsibility lie with the politicians who failed to give them the tools that they need in order to do their jobs. i urming my colleagues to stand with consumers and oppose this legislation. we need the law stays in effect and keep fighting. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from west virginia. mrs. capito: i would like to recognize mr. garrett, chairman of the capital markets subcommittee for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. garrett: i congratulate the good work done by the chairman of the full committee and the chairman of the subcommittee and the gentleman from wisconsin for a common zhrep sense piece of legislation. and he said something like we didn't make this partisan, they did it. i remind the chairman that his underlying piece of legislation, the dodd-frank legislation had more democrats vote against it than it had republicans for it and he pushed through a bill in
extremely partisan manner and that's why we are here today. i believe that the agency we're talking about is really a one-stop-shop to allocate credit and give the government the power to control the economy and at the same time they are talking about consumer protection, what are they doing? they are separating safety and soundness from it. how can you have consumer protection when separating safety and soundness? i remind the ranking member who originally was the sponsor of dodd-frank bill, the bill that is going to destroy so many jobs in this country, he said he was in favor of the same type of legislation that we have before us on the floor. this is once again a case where the ranking member was in favor of it before he was against it. mr. frank: will the gentleman yield? mr. garrett: not at this time. if the bill weakens the agency, then the bill you introduced originally would actually
destroy the agency. i have heard the ranking member during his debates do what he always does when he hasn't the facts or the law on his side, he attacks and twists other people's motives and he was in support of the elements of this bill before, but today, he comes out against it. he accuses everyone on our side of the aisle of trying to kill his legislation, but might i remind him to consider his own statements. the ranking member has claimed over the past week that the most important piece of the dodd-frank bill is the risk retention section of the legislation and then turns around and says -- mrs. capito: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: 4 1/2 minutes. mrs. capito: i yield 30 seconds. mr. garrett: he said the risk retention is most important and then says any loans with 4%
downdamente should be exempt. i don't know many loans that are at that level. i find it surprising that he is attempting to exempt everyone from the most important portion of his bill instead of trying to accuse everyone of trying to destroy jobs. i urge him to speak on this legislation. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. frank: how much time is remaining? the chair: the gentlelady from west virginia has four minutes and you have 5 3/4 minutes. mr. frank: i'm my final speaker. mrs. capito: i have no further speakers. mr. frank: i will use my time. first, the gentleman from new jersey misstates things i said. i suppose it is flattering that he hangs on my every word.
i wish i he didn't hang a stew on my words. once again, listen to what they say on the other side. this has three pieces. it has a single-member commission. more importantly, it increases the ability of the other bang bank regulators who have a terrible record of consumer protection who the chairman of the committee who says they are there to serve the banks, it would put them in a better position to cancel the work of the cfpb. i never supported anything remotely like that. i will say there is some motive. of the three parts of the bill, the only one they think won't be popular is the single chairman -- single director versus a commission. the gentleman said i misstated,
that i was in favor of something last year. i was never in favor of those parts of the bill. by the way, as to the risk retention, i did say you could get to 4% if you also had a very good debt-to-income ratio. the pattern of misstatements and it's flattering that the gentleman is so interested in what i say -- the gentleman didn't yield to me. mr. garrett: i thought you want me to answer the question. mr. frank: the gentleman is complaining i won't yield to him. typical of a certain pattern of behavior. mr. chairman, i ask for regular order. the chair: regular order. mr. frank: i didn't support putting the bank regulators pennsylvania back in charge. the gentleman from new jersey is more clear about what he really believes. again, i hope the gentlewoman from west virginia will tell us she voted against this and she
says we aren't trying to undo it. the gentleman from new jersey is very clear. he doesn't really like this and voted against it and he would abolish the whole thing and that's what we are saying, people who voted against it and he says we made it partisan, no. when the vote came, they all voted against it because they didn't want an independent consumer agency. the chairman of the committee said it again today on television. we don't worry about the fdic or federal reserve but the agency whose sole mission is to protect the consumer without worrying the banks. and the gentleman from new jersey claiming oddly, it seemed to me, this somehow hurts the small banks versus the bigger banks. the small banks are given preference with regard to who gets examined and the ability to overturn rules -- no, and this
is one of the things people may misunderstand. things that threaten the system, they could be a pattern like subprime loans, particularly subprime loans issued by nonbanks and this bill covers, regulates for the first time those nonbanks. let's go back over this. i do want to address the single member commission. the one issue they have found, it was originally proposed by ms. warren. we had hearings. we had conversations. and every single consumer group that we dealt with, the gentleman from wisconsin mentioned his supporters, wasn't a single consumer,, the consumer federation, et cetera, they persuaded me that a single member would be better than a commission. i acknowledge we had hearings and i listened to people who were for it.
here's the debate. we have everybody who was against establishing this in the first place, who were against it in principle and believe they should leave it to the bank regulators. we have everybody who supports the entity as an independent consumer protector, therefore a single member. yes, i was persuaded. i will acknowledge i changed my position based on the evidence. the gentleman's inaccurate suggestion was that i was for the other parts of this. no, i wasn't. putting the bank regulators doesn't work. and the republicans offered their own version last year. the gentlewoman from from illinois, ms. biggert and created a 14-member council and they were empowered to set up a hotline. and if they got things from the hotline and the web site that were complaints about the banks, what did they do them?
they september them to the financial regulators who failed to do things in the past. that's what they preferred. they opposed then and i believe continue to oppose an independent regulator whose primary role is the consumer. as the gentleman from north carolina pointed out, they want to give the bank regulators to cancel what the consumer regulator does but it's not reciprocal. if they think the bank regulators have been too lax, that is not reciprocal. they have never liked consumer protection. and finally, i want to say they do the banks a disservice and i stress again, the banks were not the problems here, particularly the community banks, they apparently think that a bank has to protect consumers, they will fail. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from west virginia is recognized for four minutes.
mrs. capito: thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to make a few points in closing. i want everyone to understand that nothing in this package weakens or changes the ability of the cfpb to make rules and regulations for consumer protection. now the ranking member was criticizing me for trying to change something that i didn't support. guess what? i'm a realist. i see -- this is law. this is now a part of our government. and my chore is to try to make it better. if i wanted to get rid of it, i'd be arguing for a bill that totally dismantled the entire bureau. i'm not doing that and neither are my colleagues. we accept the reality that the bureau is going to exist and we want to see it exist in the best form. that's why we make changes to it. we can argue back and forth about whether a commission or independent director is better or not.
we believe a commission is better. there are others on the other side of the building who believe that to be true as well. to mirror some of the other regulatory bodies we have in the financial arena and other arenas. i find it a little bit amusing, and the ranking member keeps saying, you're only talking about one section. let's talk about the other section. the ability to everturn a rule promulgated by the director of the cfpb he says, we're trying to make it so that those rules can be overturned. his bill makes it -- he makes you able to overturn the rules he voted yes on that and so did everybody who voted on this bill. the concept of overturning a rule and regulation is reality. it's already in the bill. we're simply saying if you're going to have a rule that says you can overturn a rule and regulation or a law that says that, let's make it workable. their standard is the whole safety and soundness of the
entire financial system. please. what rule could do that? i'm sure there's one out there but i'm not sure what it is. so we've got to get over some of the over exaggerations of what we're trying to do here today. an the last part of the bill is actually my bill. that is saying i don't think we should be turning over the reins of the cfpb to a single person, number one, i don't agree with that, but if i'm accepting reality, then let's make sure the intent of that is a senate confirmed person. i'm saying in my part of the bill, i don't like the fact that we're going to throw everything into this bureau and have somebody who is not senate confirmed overlook this and then we don't have the oversight we have as members of congress. that's -- those are the three sections of this bill. but none of the provisions we're talking about destroys
consumers' ability to be looked after by this bureau. none of this bill undoes any of the bureau's ability to und -- undo deceptive and abusive practices. we think that's a laudable goal. we don't like, maybe, the way it's been constructed, but we lost that fight. the retail is the bureau is here. so let's make it better. let's make it better for consumers. because this is who we're talking about. i've had strings of people in my district before our committee saying we can't hire people because there's too much uncertainty. there's a regulatory structure here in the financial institution that we don't understand. we don't understand what it is. we don't understand what it's going to mean. it's constraining our ability to help small business owners and that's constraining our ability to grow jobs in this country system of that's ha we're talking about today. we're talking about getting back up on our feet, weeding
through the bureaucracy and making sure that the financial >> on today's gue"washington journal" we will talk with tom coburn, a member of the gang of six and a look of the democrat'' efforts to win back that house with the chairman of the democratic congressional campaign committee. "washington journal" begins live at 7:00 a.m. eastern time on c- span. revisit the civil war this weekend on american history tv on c-span 3. sunday, we are live from the manassas national battlefield on the 150th anniversary of the battle of bull run with: programs beginning at 11:00 a.m. eastern including a dickinson college professor on lincoln and his transformation into a wartime commander in chief and what civil war programs throughout the weekend when his store. and looks at the political and
military factors. the panel of civil war historians discuss the challenges that face the north and south as they prepared their forces for battle. get the complete we can schedule at c-span.org/history. >> you are watching c-span, bringing politics and public affairs. every morning it is "washington journal." it connects you with elected officials, policy makers, and journalists. weekdays, watch live u.s. coverage of the house and weeknights, supreme court oral arguments for it on the weekend, you can see our signature interview programs. you can also watch your program and any time at c-span.org and it is all searchable on eric cspan video library. cspan, washington doorway, a public service created by america's cable companies.
>> yesterday, buddy roemer lost his presidential campaign at dartmouth college in new hampshire. the former governor of louisiana switched parties. he said he will not accept campaign contributions in excess of $100. this is 40 minutes. >> i am a methodist so i don't believe in those kind of science but it was humbling.
-- signs that it was tumbling. are we ready? today i ran for president of united states of america. i run to prepare america to grow jobs again. beginning with the elimination of our tolerance for unfair foreign trade practices and the use of our own tax code to ship jobs overseas. i run to reveal and challenge the control of the special interests over our nation's capital. and demonstrate the freedom to leave that can only come from refusing their money. i run as a proud republican but an even broader american. i believe in america, its values and future. r a nation at risk and neither the president nor any other candidates for this office
addresses are as solutions for the two major problems facing america. one is on fair trade which is stealing our best jobs, stop and economic growth, causing us to slowly sink under a mountain of debt while we attempt to maintain our standard of living by borrowing rather than working. yet no one mentions unfair trade for a solution for the problem, no one. which leads to the second on mentioned a problem. special interest campaign donations which own washington, d.c., turning it to a corrupt institution where fat cat special interest checks or write the tax code, the health care reform, and bank reform. mcorp but profits are at an all-time high.
these same corporations are sending american jobs overseas, causing fear and pain among the families of millions of our neighbors. in short, the guys with the big checks don't want reform or change. they've never had it so good. that is why no one running for president talks about solving the problem. on fair trade, stealing our best jobs, institutional corruption or of washington, d.c. -- they need the money to win. i run for president by accepted no pac money, no contribution over $100 per person and full disclosure no matter what the size of the gift, $5 or $75. we must break the stranglehold of special interests on a tax code you cannot lead, a budget
that will never be balanced, debt that cannot be repaid, and the reform of wall street banks who live by their greed and illegal activities. health care reform that does not drive down the cost and we send american jobs overseas day after day. there's only one way to get control of our country away from the special interests -- don't take their blood money. don't take their pac money. don't take their bundled the money. the president must be free to challenge and change washington and our current president -- he is raising $1 billion while in office. with my of it coming from wall street corporations and individuals he is supposed to regulate. the price tag is $35,000 per ticket. too big to fail is still on the
books. manufacturing jobs are fewer than 10 percent now in america. made in america is a label that has disappeared. unemployed and underemployed seem permanent now at 20% +. we have fewer jobs and they pay less and china is having the greatest boom in history and we are paying for it. we need trading jobs but the trade must be fair for both nations suffer. on fair trade uses child labor, prison labor, work without standards, work without environmental scorecards, and pirates the very design and products and plants that come into their nation. these unfair trade practices have cost us millions of our best jobs over the last 20 years, not just the last two,
causing untold pain and anxiety and families across america and our leaders have done nothing but talk about the wonders of free trade, a so-called free trade has killed us. trade must be fair first. , then free. american presidents starting with george washington a pet -- protected american manufacturing jobs from predatory trade practices for more than 160 years. this is not a radical idea. this is what built america. it worked again after world war two for germany and japan, both of whom refused free trade. they protected their jobs. germany is now the largest economy in europe and japan is number two on earth. we must protect our best jobs from unfair trade and from u.s.
companies who move jobs overseas using our own tax code to pay for it. they are free to do it. but we should not have to pay for it. we can protect our critical jobs without the general use of taxes. , which although successful, tend to be overly political in their formulation and application. as a first step, as a substitute for that strategy, i would amend the tax code to disallow any tax deductions for expenditures for any goods produced or services located outside the united states. don't bring up the problem of call centers. companies can still do it but we taxpayers will not pay for it. section #162 and 212 of the internal revenue code among others would be so amended.
next, i would eliminate the foreign tax credit blue paul. that is section 27a of the tax code whereby large corporations and wealthy individuals avoid u.s. taxes by moving their businesses and investment out of the country. they are protected as united states citizens but they don't pay their fair share of tax for that privilege. example number one -- general electric made $5 billion in profit last year in the u.s. and paid zero federal income tax. this will stop. finally, i would require a fair trade adjustment form to the company imports. this form which the economic difference necessary to bring the imports of manufacturing process up to minimum american standard's. this difference will be paid by
the importer as with the cost of. of adjustments under fair trading nations -- on fair trading in nations will lose their advantage. the fair competitor will suffer no ill effect. trade will grow but it will be fair. these few changes would affectively generate millions of american jobs, restoring needed growth in our lagging economy. there is much we need to do. we need to deregulate small business so it can grow again, that's for jobs come from. we need to be energy independence and create 1 million new jobs. we need to reduce federal spending by 1% of gross domestic product per year for five years consecutively. we need immigration reform that seals the border but allows legal immigration. it is important to america. we need tax reform that lowers the marginal rate with simplicity. there is much we need to do but the place to start is with the
money and unfair trade and no one is speaking about either of them. , no one. we must break the stranglehold of special interest money on our political system so that we can address the hole in the economy caused by unfair trade for which our best jobs slip away. we must seal all and restore manufacturing jobs. this growth is essential to paying the debt. we won't do it any other way and getting out of this financial trap in which we find ourselves -- it is the special interests who use unfair trade and self- written tax loophole to make their fortunes and steal our futures. $100 limit -- now pac money -- full disclosure -- free to leave
is the key. no one else can sell these two problems because they need the special interest money. all i need is you. i need 5 million americans out of 310 million to make this happen. stand with me. www. buddy roemer.com, you don't want to miss this campaign. it will be something else. i am no one. i am a former governor, a former congressman, a successful community banker who returned to politics after 16 years in have the private life. -- in have the private life. and here to confront the corruption in washington and a manufacturing base so critical
to the economic health of our great nation. this is a loss of jobs that stems in part from the unfair trading practices of some nations and the deliberate manipulation of our tax code by some multinational corporations. i am no one but i challenge the system. it is corrupt. it is not working. i am 67. i am old enough to know what to do and young enough to get it done. these are times that require bold action and fierce determination. i will do my part but i have deliberately chosen a path requiring the help of many because that is the way to win and more importantly, that is the way to get these mighty
things done him after the election. stand with me against the special interests, spread the word that real change is amongst us. even with the obvious failure of government to confront unfair trade practices and make america strong, the boys at the top are living so well that they have forgotten the rest of america. i have not. i asked the 98% of americans who never give to a presidential candidate to stand with me. together, we will restore america's promise to our children and grandchildren, we start in new hampshire where the state motto is "live free or die." is a good beginning.
may god bless america and each and everyone of you. [applause] i will take general questions you have and will be glad to do one-on-one interviews. i did not mean to take your breath away. >> if you are running as a republican, you are running in a party that has said there is no room to raise taxes to increase revenue. ?o you believe in that >> i do. i think revenue is down because of the recession. the key to our future is jobs. we need to start growing the middle-class in this country which is in trouble. the unemployment rate is permanent and the welfare state will soon be permanent.
we need to grow jobs. that is what i mentioned small businesses. that is what i mentioned the manipulation of the tax code and unfair trade practices. when a to start growing again and take care of our businesses and i think the revenue will be 18.5% of gdp. the way i would get from here to there in terms of the budget is a reduction of spending by 1% of gdp per year for five consecutive years. that will take it down from 25% where it is now. 1% of gdp is $140 billion. >> would you close the carr y-forward lou paul?
>> absolutely, we have more loopholes then a same woman or man could use a lifetime. [inaudible] people on wall street can earn six times the income of a man who has a 401k tax-free by parking yet offshore. there are many loopholes like that. i would work on the tax loopholes to work on the marginal rates. i think we can offer corporations a 15% rate but they have to give up their loopholes. that is the deal. >> you represent yourself as an
agent of change. you said 16 years in the private sector, why now? >> my view of the problem has left me in the position of waiting for others to address the subject i have waited now for five, six, 10 years. nobody says a thing in washington. money to political candidates are running for president four years ago with washington, d.c. addresses, lobbyists, activists, exited the amount of money contributed to those the same candidates by 32 states combined. we are a nation where 98% of the
people don't give a nickel, don't give a penny and they are shocked when they 1% or 2% that do own the system. i am the only congressman that did not takepac money and i got reelected time after time with no opposition. if you connect with the people on this issue, you will be amazed at what happens. i'd be the governor in louisiana who had never lost a race. he spent $16 million and i spent $1 million and i wanted it can be done. this will be a war. between special interests and me. >> you're talking about being a different candidate. if you were not running, could you vote for anyone running in the republican field right now?
>> i like them all. i will not answer your question. i remember certain tricks of the trade. i won't mention the tim pawlenti or someone i know well and like a lot. i will not mention michelle bachmann. it is fascinating to watch her do -- i have friends there. i regret they have not been able to stand back and see the power of the money. i think they know the power of the money. they are just afraid to run without it. it is the only way. >> why are you launching here today? >> i would give you my campaign managers number and we can talk about strategy. we were going to announce this week -- a couple of weeks ago and we said this week is our time.
dartmouth had an invitation for us to be here. it is a great university. i could not think of a better place in new hampshire to start. we had been invited by another community down in southern new hampshire. i promised to be in charge their son. it is a methodist church and maybe have a town meeting. we chose dartmouth which fit our schedule and it is a great university. >> you plan to relocate here? >> i have already moved to manchester, new hampshire. i live in a small apartment with one of my sons who leaves in the morning to go back to louisiana. i will probably calling you guys for a cup of coffee by the end of the week. i do town hall meetings day after day. i visit people, i am learning
new hampshire. >> there is little indication that your approach works. >> i am not taking any lessons from the past. what i like about new hampshire [inaudible] i saw john mccain reach across old wounds. he is the man. in the next six months, they will look at the front runners with 70% of the vote and will look at a guy who is 3% known with 3% of the vote and they will say i like what he says. there is no guarantee. it is an election. >> what is your fear if you talk about the corruption of washington building -- what is your fear [inaudible] >> it means that was not right
messenger perhaps. it can mean many things. i do think about that. that is an excellent question. i want to set back a reform movement by achieving my goals. my goals are already being achieved. there's more talk about campaign reform over the next two months. the other candidates endorsed the ethanol subsidies and i said we will reform the budget will star with ethanol subsidies and we will eliminate all the gas subsidies in louisiana. they sucked their breath in.
all the other candidates now say they will eliminate the subsidies. you can stand on certain issues and make them be the discussion of our time. you can set an example for other candidates. in my experience, i can win with little money, a lot of enthusiasm, and strong principles. i beat an incumbent democratic congressman that way. i beat an incumbent democratic governor that way. we can beat an incumbent democratic president the same way. >> sense to serve in two branches, what do you think of no tax [inaudible] >> they are political. i was right for the constitutional convention in louisiana and i met an old country man. i am not a lawyer. i'm a businessman.
every one else were lawyers who were running. i met an old man and he said to be careful. he said his son was in the legislature and he promised he would not raise taxes. he also promised he would give schoolteacher's the pay they deserve and his first bill in the legislature was to raise taxes to pay school teachers. i think pledges are good and i think if you believe them you should sign them. if you don't think you will follow them, you should not sign. >> what about you and grover norquist? >> i like him. i have not seen him. anybody else?
>> what about free trade practices? >> i-map common sense guide. -- i am a common sense guy. if i went to a factory in china and saw a factory employing nine-year olds, that would not be a fair trade practice. i have been to china many times. they are hardworking people. the government deliberately manipulate their currency, deliberately allows unfair trade practices can and it has to do with age, working conditions. you can see some cities in china while you are driving toward them 30 miles away. the factories are worse. i am hoping for trade.
taxes should be fair but can i keep getting our jobs away while certain nations abuse their own citizens. maybe we should stand up [inaudible] that is what i call unfair. >> you talked about perfecting -- protecting manufacturing jobs. productivity in manufacturing has increased a lot o. how would you justify the significant implementation of their trades? >> excellent question. there are many factors and work -- in work. we don't make as many but you it's as we used to. -- we don't make as many buggy
whips as we used to. america has lost for my 40% manufacturing base to 8%. other nations have built up their manufacturing. germany has increased and they pay their workers more than we do. why is that? mexico has added manufacturing jobs thanks to bill clinton. why is that? china increases, japan has done well and japan and germany have done it with protectionist trade barriers, significant barriers after world war two. technology changes, demand changes, products and change, that the change will continue and we must be flexible and swift and efficient. somewhere, sometime, someplace the president of united states
needs to protect our key jobs from unfair competition and i intend to do that. i do not intend to guarantee the number of manufacturing jobs but it is my belief that if made in america becomes important, we will grow -- we will grow jobs again. >> what justifies the millions of dollars that consumers have to pay extra to save some jobs? sometimes these jobs cost $300,000 to save? >> we follow that free-trade philosophy. we just want cheap goods. i'm sure that is important to some americans. i have a better case to make. if competition is efficient and trade is free and fair we can compete. prices might be slightly higher
but if there are 10 million more people at good jobs, the country is better off. i will make this case to the american people. we can get cheap and flimsy and unfair. look where it has brought us. or we can do a stronger and better things than president used to do in america and leaders now do in germany and japan. i think the only way to get back to real free trade is to establish what fair means. thank you all. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national
carolina. i will not just isolate myself to new hampshire but my focus is here. i was in massachusetts last night at the huge rally in brewster, mass.. i will go to iowa occasionally. >> is that based on? >> [inaudible] >> will your message on trade be better received here? >> no, it will be equally well- received anywhere. people are sick and tired. some people are on minimum wage and used to work at a factory
for $20 per hour. how does germany make this work? this is what we will talk about across this state and this country. >> can this be done within the current area of revenue collection? >> it will be hard, there's no question about it. i don't have the name recognition but i have to bond. i hope my website gets popular and we begin to build a team. like ron paul with the issue of the federal reserve, is an issue about jobs. >> people argue that the debt
ceiling has to be raised right now. >> as a banker, there is some truth in that. there is a bigger problem. it is theory. washington and a circus and politicians are clowns. none of them have run a business and they have no clue what excess of dead does. it shrinks a nation. i you don't believe me, wonder how the next man the space center will go. excessive debt shrank to a nation. that was a speech by abraham
lincoln. america doubled in size. there are real consequences of on discipline the spending by the federal government. the clock is ticking loudly. i don't think they will come to a reasonable settlement. that's why i mentioned a 1% reduction per year. i was there with energy subsidies and the department of energy. that is $140 billion. you can go from there. politics is not hard. it needs got, that's all. need the courage to stand by your convictions and quit worrying about the next election.
one thing about running for president, you cannot go any higher. >> what else would you do to try to save the economy? >> i would not take the special interest money. i would kick them out of the room. i would put small business people in the room. we had a meeting in washington in 1982. and they said the battle of the 20th century will be china and america. i said i think america will win. we are flexible. i would deregulate small business. i would go back to january 1, 2008 and to with all regulations. we were living pretty good as a nation in 2005. de-regulate and watch them grow
jobs. >> i've questions about your campaign strategy. how do you envision your strategy? >> this is the first day of my campaign. we are putting it together. we will have a series of town hall meetings on the college campus with a virtual town hall meeting. i started in ohio about one week ago. we're going to the college campuses. it is their future. they can feel the anxiety and pain at home of not having work.
i think they will be a wonderful audience. >> what is your strategy for fund raising? >> i ask everyone i meet including yellow to get on my website and make a contribution. give me a chance. the maximum it would cost you would be $100. we accept $5. and young students all over america have already started to do that. i don't have a fund raiser some night at a fancy restaurant. this strategy is about every day at every meeting being a fund-
raiser. i'm just asking people to donate. it is voluntary and when they do, we ask them to tell a friend. we can get a chain reaction over the next 30 days. we have already had contributions from 49 [inaudible] >> president obama will hold a town hall meeting this morning on the campus of the university of maryland. he is expected to talk about budget and debt ceiling negotiations. live coverage begins at 11:00 a.m. eastern on cspan 3 and c-span.org. up next, today's "washington journal" that is followed by live coverage of the house as they continue work on the